SniperHunter
Banned
I doubt PS4 will bee able to handle Planetside 2 on high or ultra, it might get a port but it will run at sub 30 FPS medium settings with plenty of frame rate drops.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Reality of console visuals surpassing PC visual fidelity
- Thread starter Resilient
- Start date
Dark Octave
Banned
I wonder if a PC running an Intel i7 (and whatever graphics card that will compete) will be future proofed for next gen. Will that be enough?
Mr. Poolman
Member
Next gen consoles will be lucky to pull the graphics my former PC pulled 2 years ago.
Glass Rebel
Member
At the distance we have our 50" TV set up, which is like 25ft, I don't see any point in upgrading to 4k either.
But I was actually making fun of his claim that 1080p and AA were the advantages of PC gaming over consoles and that consoles would suddenly be on par as soon as they can pull those two off. Resolution and AA aren't exactly the first two things that come to mind when I look at a DX11 game.
Dark Octave
Banned
Someone mentioned earlier that in '06 there was nothing on consoles or PC (I think they meant your average PC) that could top Gears of War.
Why would it be any different this time around?
There is a chance it might not be able to, due to poor optimisation or porting, but it will also have it's own games (exclusives) that will look considerably better, eg Killzone 4 or 5.
SniperHunter
Banned
KZ4 will look better than Planetside 2 for sure but PS2 is another league...the game is simply epic! massive environments, huge convoys of ships and vehicles, large number of infantry, complex geometry, incredible lighting and motion blur...I doubt you can push that kind of scale with graphics that good on a console.
This is the core truth to this whole discussion.
As you said, pure muscle isn't everything. This doesn't need to be a wee-waggling contest and I don't think it has turned into that. But if you're going to compare muscle to muscle, yeah, the sky's the limit with PCs. Even a mid-range PC today, with an i5 and a GTX 650 has plenty untapped power that today's games usually are not using.
Right, but in the past, there were console games early on the life cycle of certain machines that could not be matched on the PC regardless of how much money you invested.
That's no longer the case.
ACH1LL3US
Member
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
They couldn't be matched early this gen because PC ports were pretty much non-existent the first year of the 360 thanks to the MS moneyhat. When GOW came out some months later on PC it was a visual improvement over the 360 version.
With my most recent attempt at it, the results were definitely better but there were still common inconsistencies that would pop up regularly. The framerate counter was always high but it never felt as smooth as it should. Going back to single card mode solved it immediately.
Even with a single card, some games don't deal well with refresh rates and wind up with their own issues. It's one of the biggest problems I have with PC games as it's insanely frustrating when there is no solution. Some people don't notice this stuff and, when it so happens that the developers themselves aren't bothered by it, it never gets fixed.
From my experience with SLI, I actually have to wonder what other people are seeing. If they are truly satisfied with the results are they overlooking the issues? Do they not care about performance inconsistencies? I don't get it. I want to see ONE rig with SLI totally eliminate these problems. Nobody has been able to provide the proof I desire.
I'm speaking more about generations past when you were seeing visuals and performance at a level impossible on the PCs of that time.
The guy might be joking but it's totally true. My old SLI rig was enough for all the heating I needed in this room. Now it's cold as hell...
the port looked better on PC than on consoles.
I think that's why this kind of thread is important. There seems to be a very large gap between those who think consoles will be superior and those who think PC will be superior. A reality check is what is needed. Within my close group of friends, all of them firmly believe that consoles will reign superior, with only myself and 1 other suggesting PC. The average gamer is expecting a massive leap in visual fidelity. Bear in mind that the average gamer doesn't own a high end PC.
Dark Octave
Banned
Yeah, years later.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
1 year later, the day that MS allowed it to be released.
Oblivion and cod2 looked better on pc too.
shinobi602
Member
Eventually visuals will come to a peak of photorealism where you can no longer surpass.
At that point consoles and PCs will reach visual parity, I think.
At that point consoles and PCs will reach visual parity, I think.
doniewhalberg
Member
No of course, you're right. If we use this gen as an example, I fully understand ( I think anyway haha) that Wipeout hits 1080p/60p, but the Uncharteds, Halos and so on don't so they can hit other peaks. I don't want to look at a 720p or 1080p upscaled picture anymore though on my tv, nothing arbitrary about it for me personally, it's a factor I'll be judging on.
So what I'm really asking is "Do we really think games are not going to consistently hit 1080p/that 1080p won't be a minimum specification"? Because I already accepted a good while ago we'll won't hit 60fps, but I really kind of hoped we'd see every game at 1080p, given the 1080p hdtv adoption since the last set of consoles can out. If it isn't something MS or Sony want to hold devs to, I'll likely jump ship.
Dark Octave
Banned
But it was still later. And how much was that PC compared to the 360 at the time?
Crysis also came out in '07. Nobody said consoles will stay on top for long, but initally, there was nothing better than the Xbox 360 running Gears of War.
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Gears of War was just the production values invested in that kind of game. It was possible on PC, but nobody did it. It also wasn't the standard when other games like COD 2 were still better on PC at the time, just an expensive production to sell the system.
There was nothing on the scale of Battlefield 2 or Age of Empires III (2005) on the PS360 either at the time, how is one game focusing on normal maps and a particular art and play style you like suddenly the best looking anything without considering the scope and other parts of it as well, that obviously also dictate how good a game can look? What if they had then released an even better looking pool game, would that negate the great PC games of the time consoles couldn't have because they weren't as shiny?
Edit: add games like Medieval II (or even Rome) Total War and Guild Wars and Anno 1701 and Company of Heroes to the list.
Because hardware will be much similar to current medium tier PCs than it was back then.
Just think about it, Xbox 360 had 3 cores processor with 6 threads and GPU with edram that gave them bandwidth comparable to GDDR5 back in 2006, PS3 had 8 core processor that is in some tasks faster than i7 and had very fast XDR memory in 2007.
But You wont have any technological jump next-gen, because all consoles components will be based on medium/high range current PC tech.
If You buy i7 3960X processor [6 cores and 12 thread], that additionally can be overclocked way over 4ghz and GTX 680/R 7970 GPU You will be far ahead anything in those consoles, in terms of cores, threads, capacity, bandwidth and shader power. You just cant make next-gen consoles that have something ahead anything that its available currently on PC market.
--
How does it even matter? Microsoft/Sony buy components in bulks and have them custom made, and then sell them at loss at launch. Any one of us buys PC parts from retails for much higher price than manufacture cost and additionally must buy other stuff that is irrelevant in close console architecture.
You cant compare both price for price.
Sony and Microsoft defined what they wanted for their new consoles years ago. For exemple, Sony went to IBM in 2001 for PS3 and Microsoft went for the same company in 2003. Both consoles were supposed to launch in 2005, but PS3 got delayed.
With this in mind, it's not possible to be the same thing. AMD, nVidia and Intel will continue to push for new tech in the PC market even if they are working on new consoles. But the difference is that the consoles already have a technology defined.
How close it can be to a PC with hardware from 2012 will be defined by what developers can do. And, of course, the beginning is always a test. They couldn't do what they do now in 2005/06. But then again, some PC games are ported from consoles today, so PC hardware is not as explored as it could be.
With this in mind, it's not possible to be the same thing. AMD, nVidia and Intel will continue to push for new tech in the PC market even if they are working on new consoles. But the difference is that the consoles already have a technology defined.
How close it can be to a PC with hardware from 2012 will be defined by what developers can do. And, of course, the beginning is always a test. They couldn't do what they do now in 2005/06. But then again, some PC games are ported from consoles today, so PC hardware is not as explored as it could be.
Even at launch, PC's will far outclass new consoles technically.
However, console developers typically enjoy much larger budgets than PC only devs, and as such, some of the early exclusives may appear more impressive, even if the IQ is worse than that of a PC game for those who know what to look for.
EDIT: Wasn't F.E.A.R. released in 2005 on PC. I didn't play it myself since my PC was garbage at the time, but I remember a lot of people being extremely impressed with the graphics of that game at the time. Also, the shitiness of vanilla Oblivion on 360 vs PC was enough to show you that a power disparity existed between consoles and PCs right from launch last generation.
However, console developers typically enjoy much larger budgets than PC only devs, and as such, some of the early exclusives may appear more impressive, even if the IQ is worse than that of a PC game for those who know what to look for.
EDIT: Wasn't F.E.A.R. released in 2005 on PC. I didn't play it myself since my PC was garbage at the time, but I remember a lot of people being extremely impressed with the graphics of that game at the time. Also, the shitiness of vanilla Oblivion on 360 vs PC was enough to show you that a power disparity existed between consoles and PCs right from launch last generation.
If image quality matters more to you than asset complexity and visual fidelity, you may just be better on the PC platform then. Otherwise, history points to developers sacrificing image quality and top end performance for more bells and whistles.
The Hermit
Member
I think since Crysis the consoles lost its WOW factor regarding graphics. I mean, I doubt that I will ever have the same reaction I did when MGS2 was unveiled.
The Last of Us is incredible for a PS3, but many other games match or surpass it technically.
Also, I believe the diminishing returns will hit hard this gen, much harder than last gen, which was considerable.
The Last of Us is incredible for a PS3, but many other games match or surpass it technically.
Also, I believe the diminishing returns will hit hard this gen, much harder than last gen, which was considerable.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Pure numbers wise, probably not. However that's not the whole story. I'm sure there will be console exclusives that will blow most pc games out of the water. Pixel counters will come in and say "no way" but mgs4, gow3, and uc2 blew my mind at the time they shipped. I owned a badass pc rig back then aswell.
I just hope we get less fps games this gen. I never really find them visually impressive for some reason. I think the restrictive pov kills the possibility of dramatic camera angles.
crysis needs to stop being brought up. That game looked amazing in screenshots but ran like ass for pretty much everyone for a long time.
That said I feel sad for people who haven't played BF3 on a powerful pc
I just hope we get less fps games this gen. I never really find them visually impressive for some reason. I think the restrictive pov kills the possibility of dramatic camera angles.
crysis needs to stop being brought up. That game looked amazing in screenshots but ran like ass for pretty much everyone for a long time.
That said I feel sad for people who haven't played BF3 on a powerful pc
I'm actually afraid of upgrading my GPU due to this. My old HD 4850 is staring to freeze on me and I'm not sure it will survive until the next batch of GPUs arrive.
doniewhalberg
Member
Yea, I mean, I'm really considering everything right now, I have no idea what I'll do next year. If I could, I'd like to stay console, because no matter how cheap steam is, renting and buying later is even cheaper, for me at least. I definitely care about both sides, and I didn't expect IQ to be even nearly a top consideration but even at that, I assumed 1080p would be a cert. I thought that would be them not caring about IQ haha, naive perhaps.
If the consoles come in with a minimal visual upgrade though, some kind of anti-rental policy, or IQ below 1080p though, that would be probably be enough to push me onto the other side of the fence.
I disagree. I used to ALWAYS be a console gamer more than PC. I didn't get into PC gaming until Diablo 2 came out and even then, I still prefered gaming on console.
This changed when the PS3 launched however... when Square Enix started to go downhill. Seems like they're trying to get more into the mobile/handheld market. They also do a good job at giving their userbase what they DON'T want. Ports. And lots of them.
Nintendo is still just as good with their 1st party software but still need to demonstrate they have the 3rd party support with their new console. (Bayonetta and Mon Hun 3 Ultimate aside.)
Sega is also heading a different direction with their games too and yeah... just seems everything is going downhill.
I will say though... lately, Capcom has impressed me with localizing that new Mon Hun, licensing that new Mega Man and bringing out new IP's. Good on them.
I think the next generation of consoles will raise the bar in terms of visuals. This will be done more through production values than brute power.
A couple of years out in the next generation certain games will look noticeably better than even Crysis 3 on ultra, but it will probably do so @ 30fps and at 1280x1080 (or some adaptive frame buffer thingy), and might not actually simulate all the things a high end PC game would do.
I am a firm believer that consoles have to operate drawing less than 300 watt, while a high end GPU could draw more than that by itself. Even by doing this they will be a massive upgrade.
A couple of years out in the next generation certain games will look noticeably better than even Crysis 3 on ultra, but it will probably do so @ 30fps and at 1280x1080 (or some adaptive frame buffer thingy), and might not actually simulate all the things a high end PC game would do.
I am a firm believer that consoles have to operate drawing less than 300 watt, while a high end GPU could draw more than that by itself. Even by doing this they will be a massive upgrade.
Usually there are some console exclusives that come out during the first year or two of the consoles' life-cycle that use a new engine and new tech not yet seen on PC. It's not that PC can't run it, just that it didn't get that exclusive.
Definitely we will see a few games on console that are in the running for best graphics/most impressive games of the year once the new systems drop. Probably not launch games, but maybe 6 months-1 year after release. Something like Killzone, Gears of War, Uncharted etc...
Definitely we will see a few games on console that are in the running for best graphics/most impressive games of the year once the new systems drop. Probably not launch games, but maybe 6 months-1 year after release. Something like Killzone, Gears of War, Uncharted etc...
In theory there is no way that next gen consoles should offer the same graphical quality as high end PCs. In practice though, I think that developers are getting lazier and lazier when it comes to PC ports, so I actually can see next gen consoles at least being on a par with high end PCs. Obviously does'nt apply to PC exclusives.
I expect PCs to be more powerful than the consoles by the time of their release, but I also expect that developers will be able to get more out of the consoles than the PC for a while. Remember that the consoles are only running a minimalist OS, have a more efficient architecture, and are fixed in nature. This allows for much more aggressive optimization than can be feasibly done on a PC. But, hey, how knows?
Omegasquash
Member
Depends on the team doing the work, I figure.
walking fiend
Member
I would say depending on your definition of fidelity, PC game lags behind *current* generation best looking games.
Just as an example, I have yet to see a PC game being as good as Beyond in character design.
I would say PC games surpass current gen games mostly in IQ, number of objects, and basically other aspects where little or no further input from the designers are required and it's barely using the raw power of the systems.
Just as an example, I have yet to see a PC game being as good as Beyond in character design.
I would say PC games surpass current gen games mostly in IQ, number of objects, and basically other aspects where little or no further input from the designers are required and it's barely using the raw power of the systems.
ACH1LL3US
Member
Dark, What gpu's were you running in SLI? So your saying that the games felt less smooth with SLI? Yet the framerates are obviously higher then with one card.
I am asking because I have one 680 and would like to get another and run in SLI. What your saying worries me because I would not want to make my games run less smooth.
Let me ask this, if you have a game that runs at 30 fps maxxed out on a 680 and if you add another 680 to get 60 fps, your saying that the one card at 30 fps will feel better then two in SLI running at 60 fps?
Staying current with a PC isn't THAT expensive once you get the initial entry cost out of the way. The lower prices of games combined with the money you can get from selling older parts contributes.
2010: $600 got me a whole PC with a quad-core AMD CPU, Radeon 5770 video card and 4GB of RAM.
2011: Sold my 5770 for $80 and paid $280 for a Radeon 6950. $280-$80=$200
2012: Sold my AMD CPU+motherboard for $110, bought an i5 2500k+motherboard+4GB of RAM for $380. Sold my 6950 for $200, got a GTX 670 for $400. $780-$310=$470
I'm only going to upgrade one or the other yearly from here on. The only reason I did the video card this year was because a friend owed me $400 and the only way he could pay me back was with his credit card.
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
So, again, game scope doesn't matter, just one game going for a particular thing is the best across everything regardless of the rest? Some photorealistic pool game would suddenly trump everything? Crysis 3 come february (which won't look anything like THAT on consoles) will lag behind Beyond because it's not a restricted adventure game and instead does larger environments, actual AI, action packed scenes, and so on? Or Battlefield 3 on PC with larger maps and double the players? There's a poly, effect, texture etc (and money!) budget in all these, Beyond just spends it on a certain few things while other games spread them more. So, come on, this has nothing to do with anyone's personal definition of fidelity but just plain decent logic.
Do you even know what the latest console specs are ? You post the same thing everywhere.
The Point is Will the Consoles Specs be higher then an average Gaming PC ?
Will Next Gen Console Games might very well be unoptimized for gaming PC that it may not run well even for high end cards ?
Staying current with a PC isn't THAT expensive once you get the initial entry cost out of the way. The lower prices of games combined with the money you can get from selling older parts contributes.
2010: $600 got me a whole PC with a quad-core AMD CPU, Radeon 5770 video card and 4GB of RAM.
2011: Sold my 5770 for $80 and paid $280 for a Radeon 6950. $280-$80=$200
2012: Sold my AMD CPU+motherboard for $110, bought an i5 2500k+motherboard+4GB of RAM for $380. Sold my 6950 for $200, got a GTX 670 for $400. $780-$310=$470
I'm only going to upgrade one or the other yearly from here on. The only reason I did the video card this year was because a friend owed me $400 and the only way he could pay me back was with his credit card.
Still as compared to console
I Got a 360 in 399$ 2006 - 2012 [Jan when i sold for 100$]
7 Years Total Value For Money.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
This is something I never got used to when it came to PC gaming and - for all the ways it's still superior - it irks me to this day. I've never tried to run a game on my PC that I didn't meet or surpass the recommended system requirements for and even then it seemed like a coin flip as to whether or not I'd get a consistent framerate with graphical settings higher than the mid-range. One game I'd slam 60fps out of the park for the entirety at max resolution, the other I'd struggle to maintain 30-40fps with settings a few steps up from the console counterpart (if there was one). And while technically that's still pushing better graphics than what I'd find on a console it still irritates the hell out of me because, like you said, the optimization patch may never come.
walking fiend
Member
As I said, it depends on your definition of fidelity; I would say Crysis looks worse than ARMA 3 already by your definition.
Another example is Skyrim; you can add whatever mods you want to it to make it technically look better, but it is almost sure that next ES will look better than Skyrim [just like how Skyrim on consoles look better than heavily modded Oblivion on PC].
Another example is GTA4; it looks amazing with mods on PC, but still GTAV looks more impressive overall and shows a clear advancement over GTA4 that is not limited to few technical points, higher textures and better IQ.
I expect something similar to how this gen started, except more exaggerated in PCs favor. The multiplats will look better on PC but first party titles will have something nice going on with their respective system.
The form factor, heat and price issues are something console manufacturers have to worry about. People want a sleek device next to their TV that won't catch on fire during the summer, they don't have the benefit of being in massive boxes. Devices that also may be packaged with expensive peripherals like Kinect 2. All these factors eat away at how powerful next gen systems will be, and when looking at raw power I'm personally not expecting much compared to mid-high end PCs.
At that point the landscape of gaming will be so vastly different there probably won't be any consoles or PCs in the traditional sense.
The form factor, heat and price issues are something console manufacturers have to worry about. People want a sleek device next to their TV that won't catch on fire during the summer, they don't have the benefit of being in massive boxes. Devices that also may be packaged with expensive peripherals like Kinect 2. All these factors eat away at how powerful next gen systems will be, and when looking at raw power I'm personally not expecting much compared to mid-high end PCs.
At that point the landscape of gaming will be so vastly different there probably won't be any consoles or PCs in the traditional sense.
As someone with an tri-SLI rig right now running shit in riduculous resolutions, hell no consoles won't surpass what I got.
I easily expect to have superior resolution, framerate, effects, post-processing, AA, AF, physics, and overall IQ and stability.
All with cheaper games.
But I only buy consoles for exclusives, and nothing else. If the exclusives are good and there's at least 4 that I want, I will buy a new console.
I easily expect to have superior resolution, framerate, effects, post-processing, AA, AF, physics, and overall IQ and stability.
All with cheaper games.
But I only buy consoles for exclusives, and nothing else. If the exclusives are good and there's at least 4 that I want, I will buy a new console.